|
MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - offisapup
76
« on: December 02, 2021, 08:44 »
With the kind of phones we have today (and the sort of commissions we get), it's practically unnecessary to be shooting streets and editorial with a real camera. Nowadays I use my DSLRs exclusively to shoot wildlife, landscapes, studio work and popular tourist spots where photography is allowed. My phone takes pretty much every picture I need to take on the street or the airport or a mall or a market without ever getting me into trouble.
77
« on: November 23, 2021, 09:27 »
So I keep getting spammed by Picfair on "Exciting Offers" about big discounts on Picfair Plus. Now I haven't sold a single image on the site in 3 years. But does anyone have a Picfair Plus membership and has it helped in selling more than you do on the free account?
I mean, I don't mind paying a bit to an agency that treats contributors fairly if they actually make some good sales.
78
« on: November 22, 2021, 08:27 »
As for the email analogy, emails make perfect sense... people probably had varying opinions on whether they would be adopted or not, but I think everyone could get behind the overall concept. NFTs don't make perfect sense. And it's not because people don't understand them... I think the more you understand them, the more people realise how ridiculous it all is. Not the concept of an NFT, that's fine... the whole blockchain concept has its merits, but people paying so much for essentially nothing other than an entry in the blockchain... it's hard for any rational person to justify it all.
Yeah, I take your point. I use the term NFT interchangeably with blockchain (which I realise can be confusing). My larger point is, eventually, we'll be selling all our digital assets (which can be images, videos, whatever) on some form of a block chain because it is a quicker, more efficient technology for transactions and will most certainly be adopted in the future. Might as well get to know what it's all about instead of rejecting it outright like how some people are doing.
79
« on: November 22, 2021, 07:57 »
Sounds great, but why would anyone do that? Why would they pay $150 gas fees plus whatever the price of the image is on top to get something they can get from SS or As for considerably cheaper.
Because you aren't selling "stock", you're selling art. If your image is already on shutterstock, it's probably not wise to mint it as an nft because you're only selling a copy. The only reason a buyer would buy your image is if he sees value in it as an investment. So he can sell it off for a higher price later. That's the limited function of the NFT market as it exists today. The gas fees are miniscule compared to what a buyer would pay for the NFT and they would happily pay for the gas if they believe they can resell your art to another bidder. Of course, your image needs to be seen to have some intrinsic value for it to sell in the first place. The reason it makes sense to get into the market right now even if you don't sell anything for months is because it takes years to build a reputation as an artist in any space and once you do it, you're set for life and since this is the future of the art market, it makes sense to invest some time and get your hands dirty with the tech before it becomes the norm (which it will in due course of time)
80
« on: November 22, 2021, 07:07 »
But is there a downside to minting on Polygon? Would a prospective buyer shy away from an NFT if it's on Polygon and not Ethereum?
You're probably not going to sell right away even if you mint with Ethereum. The photography market isn't really that hot. But there's no real downside to minting on Polygon apart from the two minutes you spend uploading the image. Minting on Polygon is free only for a limited time and as the adoption grows, the gas fees would be more expensive in the future. So might as well mint your NFTs while you can for free. You can always open it for limited auction bidding later if you wish to.
81
« on: November 22, 2021, 07:01 »
I wonder if photographers who upload on free stock websites earn more money. Not that I want to support that but I have seen a Christmas background which was downloaded 180000 times. I wonder how often someone bought that person a coffee. Why do people upload thousands of images there if they don't earn 1 cent?
It's not about the money, it's about the dopamine. What the free sites (and social media like FB and Insta) have figured out very successfully is that people will spend all their time and money in creating something for them as long as they get instant validation. When you see your picture get a 100000 views and a 10000 downloads, it makes people feel good and that's what they're looking for.
82
« on: November 22, 2021, 06:21 »
You should be aware that getting work up for sale as a NFT isn't free.
Not true. You can put your image on rarible or opensea without paying any gas fees. On Opensea, all you need to do is choose Polygon instead of ethereum to mint your NFT. On rarible, you have the option of having the buyer pay your gas fees so you don't have to.
83
« on: November 22, 2021, 06:19 »
Nah. Theres no need for it. No benefit. Just an over complication.
That's what they said when "emails" started becoming a thing back when. Everything digital is going to be on some form of a block chain in a few years. It's inevitable, whether we like it or not. And like with any new technology, the people who benefit the most are early adopters.
84
« on: November 18, 2021, 11:15 »
I'm still watching the Crypto bubble, but after that bursts and things level out, crypto could be useful for something beyond trendy high risk investing.
Yeah, like the dot com bubble. It burst but the internet flourished after because of the extensive adoption during the bubble.
85
« on: November 18, 2021, 10:19 »
The energy consumption is due to the Proof of Work mining adopted by Bitcoin and Ethereum. The NFTs are primarily powered by Ethereum which is making a big move to Proof of Stake mining which will require considerably less energy. NFT networks powered by XRP and Cardano and even Solana are far more environmentally sustainable. So it wouldn't be fair to bash all the cryptos equally. There are good ones that are environmentally conscious and which use less power than even cash or digital transactions.
Now whether it's wise for photographers to pour all their time, energy and money into mining NFTs? That's a different story. I don't think it's an alternative to even microstock at the moment and perhaps won't be one even in the distant future. But in a few years' time, it might compete with Fine Art photography outlets and if it takes off like people are hoping it would, might even render them redundant in a decade, just like the internet did to the telegram and fax machines.
86
« on: November 12, 2021, 09:17 »
I don't like Shutterstock but this wasn't a fraud. Any subscription service that gives you a free trial and has you enter a credit card assumes you intend to continue a paid subscription unless you cancel it before the trial ends. It's entirely your responsibility to read terms and conditions before you put your credit card down for anything.
88
« on: October 28, 2021, 12:01 »
So basically, take the 10 cents you make from your picture and put it into Shutter Stock. It may become 13 cents in a year. Hurray I guess.
89
« on: July 02, 2021, 07:52 »
Shutterstock pay upfront also, I was offered just under $2000 for around 1000 of my images. I declined as the difference with Shutterstock is you give them away FOREVER not just the 12 months Adobe offer. Shutterstock also choose the images.
It seems you missed the part where you signed a NDA that legally forbids you to talk about this. 
I'm glad he did. Now some of us who didn't receive this "exciting" email know what it is. Something SS wants to keep under wraps and makes it look much poorer and shadier in comparison to other agencies who are at least more honest and upfront about making such deals.
90
« on: May 29, 2021, 08:33 »
Well, those things are not editorial use, so....
Of course they are. When you're making an internal presentation to a corporate and you use non-model released images, you're using those images in an editorial capacity. Also, the inner layouts of newspapers and magazines (online or print) don't make themselves. Many of them pages require careful design on photoshop or indesign or illustrator.
91
« on: May 29, 2021, 07:33 »
Have been with them for a year. Zero sales.
Some of them were sold as "Instant Pay" to freepik which was partly my fault because I didn't see the email which warned me they were going to sell them to free sites. But other than that, zero. Stopped uploading to them months ago.
92
« on: May 29, 2021, 07:28 »
Who is using editorial images in Adobe softwares?
Well, lots of people do. When you have to make a design or presentation or a poster with pictures of people, landmarks, signs, news images on Illustrator or Photoshop, you do need editorials. I worked at a news channel for a couple of years and we had to make a few of these every week.
94
« on: April 15, 2021, 16:50 »
I might as well stop feeding the beast and give away my entire portfolio for free to Unsplash. It's a sad time we live in. 
You mean you're going to give it away for free to Getty. Nice. Stop feeding the beast but keep feeding the beast anyway for free.
96
« on: March 03, 2021, 10:47 »
Probably agencies do it to keep the contributors on their toes, pushing the technical quality higher and higher.
"Agencies"? I upload to 12 agencies and the only one that rejects photos is Shutterstock. So clearly the problem is with just one agency and their idiotic review system which is getting only stupider with AI taking over.
97
« on: February 26, 2021, 12:06 »
Freepik has a "level" ranking? 
98
« on: February 24, 2021, 08:41 »
Probably not the greatest time to be selling a new stock uploader.
But yeah, wish you the very best.
99
« on: December 20, 2020, 07:58 »
Things could be worse, you could still have your SS account open and get $11.60 for those 116 downloads and that is at 35% hahahaha.
SS account is open. 230 downloads, 93$. So yeah, IS way worse and if I was any smarter, would have closed it long ago. 90 quid is still some extra cash. Buys me a few meals.
100
« on: December 19, 2020, 11:12 »
I got 17 dollars from 116 downloads. The pits. But then I'm the idiot to still have an istock account active.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
